nw .%O'OB
Michael William Godfrey - TDCJ # 1340683
Boyd Unit 200 Spur 113 Teague, Texas 75860 Oetober 26, 2015 ._ RCC,E|VED EN Honorable Abel Acosta ceuRT 0F cRchNALAPPEALs Chief Deputy Clerk N[]\/ 02 2915 Court of Criminal Appeals . . 12 0 P 0 B°X 3 8 AbetAeosta,Ctetk
Austin, Texas 78711 RE= Filin`g of Applicant’s objection - SUPPL`EMENTAL
Dear Honorable Clerk: Enclosed, please FH\ID Applicant’S Objection to Court’s Findings Of Fact and Conclusions of Law - SUPPLEMENTAL. FILE, and bring to the
attention of the Court Justices.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
MWN/
Michael Wiuiam Golfrey TDCJ #1340683
Applicant Pro Se
Cc: Chris Daniel, Harris County District Clerk’s Offlce
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS IN THE 230TH I)ISTRICT COURT oF HARRIS CoUNTY, TEXAS EX PARTE Case # WR-76-780-3
MICHAEL W. GODFREY Trial Court No. 912345-D
OMOUJ¢M’WO
APPLICANT’S OBJECTION TO COURT’S FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
SUPPLEMENTAL
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, l\/Iichael William Godfrey (Applicant) in the above styled and numbered cause and files this, his first Supplemental to his ~ Objection to Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of LaW. Applicant
Would ask the Court to consider the following:
I. BACKGROUND Applicant Was alleged in a Motion To Adjudicate Guilt, among other things, inter alia, possession of marijuana less than 4 `grams, and an
Adjudication Hearing Was held. The Honorable Susan Brown of the 185th
District Court of Harris County found the possession charge to be ‘true’ and assessed 15 years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. n
Applicant subsequently filed an Application For Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Honorable Brad Hart of the 230th District Court of Harris County adopted and signed the State’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on September 8, 2015, one (l) month past the due date for the Court to forward the file to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Applicant then filed his Objection to Court’s Findings of F act and Conclusions of Law.
In his ‘Objection’ he re-iterates his position that he is “actually innocent” of the only law violation that revoked his probation: possession of marijuana, less than 4 grams because:
(1) Matthew De Los Santos brings “newly discovered” affidavit testimony that the marijuana did not belong to Applicant, but Was his, and that he had left it in the backseat of the Applicant’s truck the night prior to being stopped and the marijuana Was found, and; t
(2) Applicant’s defense counsel failed to investigate this exculpatory alibi evidence. Thus, because counsel failed to discover this exculpatory alibi evidence, it Was “unavailable” to the fact-finder, Judge
Susan Brown of the lSSth District Court. It is “more likely than not” that the
Judge would have continued Applicant on his probation, finding him
“actually innocent” of the only law violation that revoked his probation.
II. ACTUAL INNOCENCE
The entire time the Applicant was on probation, just under four (4) years, he was required to take a drug test every two (2) weeks, even against the assessment that he was not susceptible to using drugs. Not once did he test positive. (Exhibit A). Therefore, it would be safe to draw the inference that Applicant was not in the habit of using marijuana If he was, arguendo, he would be in the habit of possessing it. If he was in the habit of possessing it, then, at least, it would be safe to infer that Applicant would not be careless and leave it out in the open on the backseat where it would be clearly seen by someone looking in, i.e.: say, a police officer (Officer Michael Sprinkle) initiating a routine traffic stop for a recently expired inspection sticker. It is a sad day when someone does twelve years in prison on a fifteen year sentence because of an expired inspection sticker.
j Applicant was the owner/operator of SG Systems, a six-figure General Contracting business in Commercial Construction. Applicant built malls, banks, and shopping strip centers. He used his trucks, registered in the SG
System’s name, as “company trucks”, to transport workers to and from job
sites. It is not unreasonable .to infer that the marijuana belonged to one of the workers, especially since it was found in the backseat.
In light of this premise, it would also not be unreasonable to infer that the marijuana was left in the backseat by someone who was in the backseat. (emphasis added). Matthew De) Los Santos brings “newly discovered” evidence that it was him who had left it in the backseat the night prior to the
traffic stop for the inspection sticker and the marijuana was discovered
IN CONCLUSION, it would be unreasonable to assume that the marijuana belonged to the Applicant. In light of the “newly discovered” evidence, the Court should consider the existence of another perpetrator, and declare Applicant “actually innocent” of the possession charge, and grant
relief.
III. ABUSE OF DISCRETION After the first Application For Writ of Habeas Corpus was filed on January 4, 2010, claiming Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Conflict of Interest, and Prosecution’s Use of Misleading Testimony at the Adjudication Hearing, the State, in its Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,
which the Court adopted, proposed that even without counsel’s ineffective
assistance, counsel’s conflict of interest, and Prosecution’s use of Misleading_ Testimony, the Applicant plead ‘true’ to the allegation that he purchased alcohol. (R.R. at 7) State’s Proposed Findings, 33).
Applicant pled true to purchasing alcohol because he was being honest. Applicant purchased a bottle of Southem Comfort for his mother while in route to his mother’s house. The 185th used this to revoke Applicant’s probation. This was a clear Abuse of Discretion because “buying it is not a violation
A District Court Abuses its Discretion when it improperly applies the law, or when a judge renders a decision that is incorrect U.S. v Alexius, 76 F. 3d 642 .(5"‘ Circuit 1996) (the Court of Appeals heldthat the District Court abused its discretion by not allowing the cross-examination of a
witness regarding a pending federal felony drug charge and that the error
was not harmless); U.S. v. Russell 76 F. 3d 808 (6th Circuit 1996) (trial
court improperly considered defendant’s involvement in drug transaction that\ happened months after charged offense and that did not occur “during the commission of the offense of conviction”.
In an email conversation between Elizabeth Horton (CSC), the Applicant’s Probation Officer, and Sheryl Frerichs (CSC), another Probation
Officer on August 5, 2004 at 8:41Al\/I, Elizabeth Horton stated: ”I told John
(polygrapher) we needed to know specifically if the defendant consumed
alcohol because “buying it is not a violation”...” (Emphasis added). There
is no proof in the record that Applicant “consumed” alcohol. (Exhibit B). This Honorable Court should consider these facts in determining
whether Applicant’s probation should have been revoked.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE,\PREMISES CONSIDERED, Michael William
Godfrey (Applicant) PRAYS for declaratory judgment
Respectfully Submitted,
WMM%
Michael` William Godfrey TDCJ #1340683
Boyd Unit
200 Spur 113
Teague, Texas 75860
Applicant Pro Se.
CERTIFICATE ()F SERVICE
I, Michael William Godfrey, TDCJ #1340683, being currently incarcerated at the Boyd Unit, TDCJ-CID, and being the Applicant in the foregoing proceedings do verify that this is a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been mailed to:
Linda Garcia
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
nw .%O'OB
Michael William Godfrey - TDCJ # 1340683
Boyd Unit 200 Spur 113 Teague, Texas 75860 Oetober 26, 2015 ._ RCC,E|VED EN Honorable Abel Acosta ceuRT 0F cRchNALAPPEALs Chief Deputy Clerk N[]\/ 02 2915 Court of Criminal Appeals . . 12 0 P 0 B°X 3 8 AbetAeosta,Ctetk
Austin, Texas 78711 RE= Filin`g of Applicant’s objection - SUPPL`EMENTAL
Dear Honorable Clerk: Enclosed, please FH\ID Applicant’S Objection to Court’s Findings Of Fact and Conclusions of Law - SUPPLEMENTAL. FILE, and bring to the
attention of the Court Justices.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
MWN/
Michael Wiuiam Golfrey TDCJ #1340683
Applicant Pro Se
Cc: Chris Daniel, Harris County District Clerk’s Offlce
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS IN THE 230TH I)ISTRICT COURT oF HARRIS CoUNTY, TEXAS EX PARTE Case # WR-76-780-3
MICHAEL W. GODFREY Trial Court No. 912345-D
OMOUJ¢M’WO
APPLICANT’S OBJECTION TO COURT’S FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
SUPPLEMENTAL
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, l\/Iichael William Godfrey (Applicant) in the above styled and numbered cause and files this, his first Supplemental to his ~ Objection to Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of LaW. Applicant
Would ask the Court to consider the following:
I. BACKGROUND Applicant Was alleged in a Motion To Adjudicate Guilt, among other things, inter alia, possession of marijuana less than 4 `grams, and an
Adjudication Hearing Was held. The Honorable Susan Brown of the 185th
District Court of Harris County found the possession charge to be ‘true’ and assessed 15 years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. n
Applicant subsequently filed an Application For Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Honorable Brad Hart of the 230th District Court of Harris County adopted and signed the State’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on September 8, 2015, one (l) month past the due date for the Court to forward the file to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Applicant then filed his Objection to Court’s Findings of F act and Conclusions of Law.
In his ‘Objection’ he re-iterates his position that he is “actually innocent” of the only law violation that revoked his probation: possession of marijuana, less than 4 grams because:
(1) Matthew De Los Santos brings “newly discovered” affidavit testimony that the marijuana did not belong to Applicant, but Was his, and that he had left it in the backseat of the Applicant’s truck the night prior to being stopped and the marijuana Was found, and; t
(2) Applicant’s defense counsel failed to investigate this exculpatory alibi evidence. Thus, because counsel failed to discover this exculpatory alibi evidence, it Was “unavailable” to the fact-finder, Judge
Susan Brown of the lSSth District Court. It is “more likely than not” that the
Judge would have continued Applicant on his probation, finding him
“actually innocent” of the only law violation that revoked his probation.
II. ACTUAL INNOCENCE
The entire time the Applicant was on probation, just under four (4) years, he was required to take a drug test every two (2) weeks, even against the assessment that he was not susceptible to using drugs. Not once did he test positive. (Exhibit A). Therefore, it would be safe to draw the inference that Applicant was not in the habit of using marijuana If he was, arguendo, he would be in the habit of possessing it. If he was in the habit of possessing it, then, at least, it would be safe to infer that Applicant would not be careless and leave it out in the open on the backseat where it would be clearly seen by someone looking in, i.e.: say, a police officer (Officer Michael Sprinkle) initiating a routine traffic stop for a recently expired inspection sticker. It is a sad day when someone does twelve years in prison on a fifteen year sentence because of an expired inspection sticker.
j Applicant was the owner/operator of SG Systems, a six-figure General Contracting business in Commercial Construction. Applicant built malls, banks, and shopping strip centers. He used his trucks, registered in the SG
System’s name, as “company trucks”, to transport workers to and from job
sites. It is not unreasonable .to infer that the marijuana belonged to one of the workers, especially since it was found in the backseat.
In light of this premise, it would also not be unreasonable to infer that the marijuana was left in the backseat by someone who was in the backseat. (emphasis added). Matthew De) Los Santos brings “newly discovered” evidence that it was him who had left it in the backseat the night prior to the
traffic stop for the inspection sticker and the marijuana was discovered
IN CONCLUSION, it would be unreasonable to assume that the marijuana belonged to the Applicant. In light of the “newly discovered” evidence, the Court should consider the existence of another perpetrator, and declare Applicant “actually innocent” of the possession charge, and grant
relief.
III. ABUSE OF DISCRETION After the first Application For Writ of Habeas Corpus was filed on January 4, 2010, claiming Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Conflict of Interest, and Prosecution’s Use of Misleading Testimony at the Adjudication Hearing, the State, in its Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,
which the Court adopted, proposed that even without counsel’s ineffective
assistance, counsel’s conflict of interest, and Prosecution’s use of Misleading_ Testimony, the Applicant plead ‘true’ to the allegation that he purchased alcohol. (R.R. at 7) State’s Proposed Findings, 33).
Applicant pled true to purchasing alcohol because he was being honest. Applicant purchased a bottle of Southem Comfort for his mother while in route to his mother’s house. The 185th used this to revoke Applicant’s probation. This was a clear Abuse of Discretion because “buying it is not a violation
A District Court Abuses its Discretion when it improperly applies the law, or when a judge renders a decision that is incorrect U.S. v Alexius, 76 F. 3d 642 .(5"‘ Circuit 1996) (the Court of Appeals heldthat the District Court abused its discretion by not allowing the cross-examination of a
witness regarding a pending federal felony drug charge and that the error
was not harmless); U.S. v. Russell 76 F. 3d 808 (6th Circuit 1996) (trial
court improperly considered defendant’s involvement in drug transaction that\ happened months after charged offense and that did not occur “during the commission of the offense of conviction”.
In an email conversation between Elizabeth Horton (CSC), the Applicant’s Probation Officer, and Sheryl Frerichs (CSC), another Probation
Officer on August 5, 2004 at 8:41Al\/I, Elizabeth Horton stated: ”I told John
(polygrapher) we needed to know specifically if the defendant consumed
alcohol because “buying it is not a violation”...” (Emphasis added). There
is no proof in the record that Applicant “consumed” alcohol. (Exhibit B). This Honorable Court should consider these facts in determining
whether Applicant’s probation should have been revoked.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE,\PREMISES CONSIDERED, Michael William
Godfrey (Applicant) PRAYS for declaratory judgment
Respectfully Submitted,
WMM%
Michael` William Godfrey TDCJ #1340683
Boyd Unit
200 Spur 113
Teague, Texas 75860
Applicant Pro Se.
CERTIFICATE ()F SERVICE
I, Michael William Godfrey, TDCJ #1340683, being currently incarcerated at the Boyd Unit, TDCJ-CID, and being the Applicant in the foregoing proceedings do verify that this is a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been mailed to:
Linda Garcia
Assistant District Attorney 1201 Franklin, Suite 600 Houston, Texas 77002
ming
Michael William Godfrey TDCJ #1340683
under penalty of perjury.
EXHIBIT A
Proof of all of Applicant’s drug results from 2002-2005
[All negative]
, .',-*- _ n s \, . '{:. x,'t ,'.,' '-
Chf'O`l'lQl'OQiCGl SUmmGPY cAusE/cscn#
sPN# 091234501010 -.‘.~ 01238606 Next Rpt pace @ 1 T¥PE oF Los ` _______ . oATE coNTAcT suMMARv oF coNTAcT 2 ' 8/22/2005 uA cso REcEl\/ED uA RESULTS- NEGATl\/E. ~ g_,
ELIZABETH HORTON YB
nefendam: MchAEL GoDFREv cso: ` . E\izabeth Horton Pol Y8
SPN#
01238606 Next Rpt mate ________ @ T¥PE OF Los ...... DATE cONTACT suMMARY oF coNTAcT 2 '
§ , 1 o Chr'onologica§ Summary
l 091234501010 ‘*,‘
CAUSEICSCD#
5/23/2005
UA
cso REcEr\/ED uA RESuL.Ts- NEGAnvE. ' EleABETH HoRToN
CSO RECE|VED 4-05 SOTP PROGRESS REPORT. / ELIZABETH HORTON Y8
ar
Elizabeth Horton PO| YB
.`_.~_ -
Defondant:
MlCHAEL GODFREY CSO:
. ' . Chl"onologi€€ll SU|’N\’\G|”Y `cAusE/cscrg§___”
__._€Mt__ » 091234501010"";:_ 01238606 . Next Rpc pate @ § TYPE OF LOS nATE coN'rAcT suMMARY oF coN'rAcT 2 411 1/2005 UA csc REcE\\/ED uA REsqusF NEGATWE. EL\zABETH HoRroN 62
Defendant: M|CHAEL GODFREY CSO: Ellzabeth Hor‘ton
. . Chf'OnOlOgiCGl SUmmG|”y cAusE/csco#
SPN# 091234501010 _".‘.` 01238606 NBXt Rpt Date @ TYPE OF Los _ DATE CONTACT SUMMARY OF CONTACT 2 ' 2/28/2005 uA CSO RECE|VED UA RESULTS- NEGAT|VE. M( EL|ZABETH HORTO 8
Defandant: M|CHAEL GODFREY CSO: Elizabeth Horton POI Y8`
l 0
Chl"'OnOlOgiCGi $Umm(ll”Y ‘ cAusE/cvsco#"
__§Bhi__ 091234501010 ‘* 01238606 Next Rpt Date @ -i:_ TYPE oF ~ Los --*_----~~~-. nATE coNTAcr suMMARv oF coNTAcr 2 ' _
2/8!2005 MA"- CSO RECE|VED 2004 SOTP ANNUAL PROGRESS REP§RT. EL|ZABETH HORTON
CSO RECE|VED UA RESULTS~ NEGATIVE. id §§ EL|ZABETH HORTON_
Defendant: MlCHAEL GODFREY CSO: E|izabeth Horton PO| ‘{8
§ d
Chf'OhOnglCGi SU|T\"\GI“Y cAusE/cscn# sPN# 091234501010 je_ 0'1233606 Nexc Rpt uaw @ § TYPE OF - Los DATE coNTAcT suMMARY oF coNTAcT 2 f' 11/11/2004 uA cso REcE¢vED uA REsuLTs- NEGATNE. ZJA_
EL|ZABETH HORTON ¥8
‘_.,-`_
Defendant: MICHAEL GODFREY ' CSO: Elizabeih HO|’lOn
PO|
Y8
CHRONOLOG|CAL SUMMARY 01238606 ` 912345 SpN# CAUSE # TYPE OF l DATE CONTACT ‘ SUMMARY OF CONTACT 01/13/04 Received UA results from 01!09)'04. negative. infred Dean YX 63 91/16/04 Received ELM Reports from GSSC from 01!05/04 through 01!1 5104. Reviewed, no violations noted. infred Dean YX 65 01/20/04 eeeived progress report from SOTP, Ross|yn Granger for the month of December 2003. No sessions missed. Participation: attentive, said very litter, did not inltlate. urrent treatment oals: define treatment goals infred Dean YX 01/26/04 Ret.eived ELM reports from esso from 01/16104 through 01/23to4. Reviewed, no violations noted. infred Dean YX
°1’26’°4 *° _ Reeeived call from Mary with Gssc advising that defendant needed to
have in monitor checked for battery change. She reported that he had several open close strap reports over the weekend which usually indicates that a battery change is naeded.
infred Dean7® .
LOS 2 PROBAT|ONER’S NAME: . Michael William Godfrey
CHRONOLOG|CAL SUMMARY 01238606 912345 SPN# CAUSE # TYPE OF DATE CONTACT SUMMARY OF CONTACT 09/10/03 tc Received message from defendant reporting that the job ended with rake. Reports started a new job with Taft Construction 4543 Post Oak Rd. #214, Houston, TX 77057, ph # 713-960-9991. Raports job site is at emorial City Maii rebuilding the front entrance. Reports that he is calling Officer Coffelt to report update. infred Dean m 09/1 2/03 eoelved UA results from 09/08!03, negative. infred Dean LOS 2 PROBAT|ONER’S NAME: Michael William Godfrey
CHRO'NOLOG|CAL SUMMARY . 01238606 ' 912345 SPN# CAUSE # T¥PE OF DATE CONTACT SUMMARY OF CONTAC`I' 05/23/03 Received Sex Offender psychosocial evaluation completed by Rossiyn Granger 12111/02 Sex Offender Treatment recommended Winfred Deanm 05/23/03 Received UA results from 05/19{03, negative.
Winfred Dean Y® _
LOS
PROBAT\ON ER’S NAME: Michael William Godfrey
w
. . cHRoNoLoGchL suMMARY
01238606 ‘ 912345 SPN# CAUSE #
TYPE OF DATE CONTACT ' SUMMARY OF CONTACT
03/1 1103 tc Contacted SOTP, Granger and left message for call to be returned. infred Dean YX @
Received returned call from SOTP, Rossiyn Granger to verify efendant's attendance in treatment SOTP informed CSO that efendant did make session up on 03/05/03 for missed session on 3101/03 but called her on 03107/03 and left a message requesting his e baiance'. He also advised that he would report for session on 03!08/03. However, informed that he failed to report for his session on 03108!03. CSO advised that defendant came in to report today but CSO as not aware that he missed his session this past weskend. Ms. ranger reported the she would send notification of missed treatment
03/11/03 ic
03"12/03 tc Contacted defendant and left message on voice mail for call to be
returned. infred Dean YX
Received reports from Rosslyn Granger dated 0311 1103 notifying of issed treatment sessions on 03!01!03 and 03/08!03. Defendant made
up missed session on 03/01/03 on 03,'05/03.
infred Dean YX
03/12!03
03/12/°3 RAcKlNe sheer susml'r'rEo To cary asserts with HPD.
infred Dean YX GP
03/12/03 tc Received returned call from defendant, questioned him about why he did
not report that he missed SOTP on 03!08}03 when he reported for this office visit on 03!11/03. Defendant reported that he was afraid to tell
` SO that he missed, CSO questioned him about the reason for the miss.
He reported that he 'ssed because he work up iate.
03/13/03 Received UA results form 03/11/03, negative
Winfred Dean YX
0 117/03 3 Received progress report from SOTP, Granger for the month of February
2003. No sessions missed, participation needs improvement Winfred Dean
LOS 2 PROBAT|ONER’S NAME: Michael William Godfrey
CHRONOLOG|CAL SUMMARY 01238606 912345 SPN# CAUSE # TYPE OF DATE CONTACT SUMMAR¥ OF CONTACT 02/ 12103 ` Received UA results from 02/07!03, negative. infred Dean YX@
02/17/03 Received progress report from Granger for the month of January 2003. No sessions missed, needs to be more focused and show initiative in treatment _ `
Received Annual Progress Report for the year 2002. Overall progress, below average. nfred Dean YX@ 02/25/03 fC contacted defendan d reset visit for 02/21/03 @ 1:30 am. infred Dean YX 3 5 f LOS_ 2 PROBAT|ONER’S NAME: Michaei William Godfrey~
CHRONOLOGICAL
- SUMMARY M ___91_2.§£§__ SPN# CAUSE # T\'FE OF Dl>l§ CONTAGT - SUMMARY OF CONTACT
10109/02 tc CSO contacted defendant and informed him that the court is allowing
his 30 days to locate a new residence. Advised that he needs to move ' rom current location by 11108/02. Defendant agreed to compiy. To
contact CSO 7 days or to any move. iWinfred Dean Y)(.
1011 1/02 fG Received call from defendant, reports working on a ]ob at a doctor's ,
ffice for Dr. Salee 1210 NASA Rd 1, 77058, 281 -543-8200. infred Dean YX
10/11/92 Received UA results from 10109!02, negative. Winfrec| Dean Y)W
10/1 7102 tc Received call from defendant, requesting the surveillance officer measure the distance again from pool as he feels that the measurement is not accurate. He re uested to be present when the measurement is conducted. l '
10/17/02 Wmfred Dean YX
Submitted request for residence be measured again for csz compliance. infred Dean YX '
PROBAT\ONER’S NAMEZ Michael William Godfrey
EXHIBIT B
Proof of email conversation between (CSC)s
Elizabeth Horton and Sheryl Frerichs
` . . Page 1 ors v . . :i:.‘,:,
Horton. Elizabeth (GSC)
From: Fretichs, Sl't&ryl (CSC)
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 8:41 AM , t To: Horton, Elizebeth (CSC)
Subject: RE: Probationer Michael Godfrey
Did you &nd out whether or not he lied to you about John rescheduling him?? -~-»-Ortginal Message--- From: Horton, Eilzabeth (CSC)
Sent:`Thursday, August 05, 2004 8:10 AM _ ..1.
To: Frerichs, Sheryl (CSC) fl`lff‘.l Subjecl:: RE: Probationer Michae| Godfrey ::_ John said he could not get much out of him. He was so surprised when John ;;‘;f§i confronted him on being in a liquor store it wasn't funny. Ofcourse he came up xi
with a lie about buying two ltter bottle of coke. ` M;
~--Origtnal Message-:"-'--.. _
From: Frerichs, Sheryl (C$C)
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 8:07 AM To: Horcon, Eztzabem (csc)
Subject: RE: Probationer Michaei Godfrey
imagine thatl Any admissions'?'
----Ortginal Message--- , ,- From: Horr.on, Eiizabem (Gc) Sent: ‘i`hursday, August 05, 2004 8:07 AM " To: Frerlchs, Sheryl (CSC)
He failed big time on the alcohol questions. John said he kept trying to ';_;~_; control the interview. l_::::; ----Origina| Message--»-~ ~j:::j Frorn: Frerlchs, Sheryl (CSC) :::; Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 10:48 AM ::::-.
To: Horton, Elizabeth (CSC) _ Subject: RE: Probationer Mlchae| Godfrey f'_"j
FY| - John just stopped by. Mr. Godfrey thought he might be ableto come up wlthe money later this afternoon and John can still test him today. | told John we needed to
know specifically. if the def. has consumed alcohol because buying it is not a vtoiation. He will include this in his test. ~m_--
»--Original Message -----
From: Horton, E|lzabeth (CSC) _
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 10:05 AM
To: Frcrichs, Sheryi (CSC) ~ Subject: RE: Probationer Michael Godfrey
10/4/2004 .....Ӥ
winner
._»,..